ArticleUrolithiasis2020
Fragmentation of brittle material by shock wave lithotripsy. Momentum transfer and inertia: a novel view on fragmentation mechanisms.
Article in Urolithiasis, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Debate on momentum transfer in shock wave therapy and neurostimulation - reply to Mohana Sundaram et al.: correspondence.International journal of surgery (London, England) · 2026Article
- Ultrasonic-assisted preparation of SBS modified asphalt: Cavitation bubble numerical simulation and rheological properties.Ultrasonics sonochemistry · 2024Article
- High-frequency shock wave lithotripsy: stone comminution and evaluation of renal parenchyma injury in a porcine ex-vivo model.World journal of urology · 2023Article
- GeoBioMed perspectives on kidney stone recurrence from the reactive surface area of SWL-derived particles.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- What is the impact of pulse modulation technology, laser settings and intraoperative irrigation conditions on the irrigation fluid temperature during flexible ureteroscopy? An in vivo experiment using artificial stones.World journal of urology · 2022Article
- Multiphysics Analysis of Ultrasonic Shock Wave Lithotripsy and Side Effects on Surrounding Tissues.Journal of biomedical physics & engineering · 2021Article
- Extracorporeal shock wave therapy: an update.EFORT open reviews · 2020Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Shock wave lithotripsy is the only non-invasive stone therapy and in clinical use since 1980. In spite of decades with millions of patients treated, the mechanism of fragmentation is still under debate. Detailed knowledge of the fragmentation process is required for improvements regarding safety and efficiency. The purpose of this paper is to gain a deeper insight into the mechanism of fragmentation by drawing attention to basic physical laws of inertia and momentum transfer. Many fragmentation experiments are based on the overall efficiency of multiple shock waves in crushing kidney stones or artificial model stones utilizing small baskets or latex pouches. Due to the high dynamic nature of the fragmentation process, in vitro and in vivo, a detailed action of a single shock wave on a particular stone target is difficult to investigate. We utilized a bifilar stone suspension, which allowed us to observe horizontal movements of model stones, their return to the initial position and orientation for repeated exposure of separate identical shocks. The method does not describe the entire fragmentation process in detail but elucidates a mechanism, which may be effective throughout shock wave lithotripsy in general. Measurements on model stones in water revealed forces in the range of 370 N, acceleration values of 100,000-200,000 m/s
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.